[Intl-tobacco] 'Light' Tobacco Ads Found Deceptive, European Parliament to Vote on Ban

[Robert Weissman]

'Light' Tobacco Ads Found Deceptive, European Parliament to Vote on Ban

by GEOFF WINESTOCK  / Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

EUROPE;
Source: The Wall Street Journal Interactive Edition, Friday, 10/27/00

Billboards across Germany recently carried a cigarette advertisement
with a
bizarre slogan. Next to a large embossed silver packet of Benson &
Hedges
Lights cigarettes ran the words "Imagine Life Without Silver." Why
stress the
color?

The antismoking lobby and cigarette companies agree that this style of
ad,
linking low-tar cigarettes to specific soft colors or images, is no
coincidence. It is a pre-emptive strike in response to a regulatory
experiment
that looks set to hit the 15 countries of the European Union, the
world's
biggest cigarette market by volume. The European Parliament is expected
to vote
Dec. 11 on the second reading of a draft directive that would ban terms
such as
"mild," "light" and "low tar" from cigarette packaging, starting in
2003. At
one stroke, that would kill scores of premium brand names, accounting
for 30%
of sales in Europe.

Tobacco companies elsewhere in the world have long faced advertising
bans,
health warnings and a host of other restrictions. But in the face of
this
possible EU directive, cigarette companies are already looking for new
ways to
communicate the "light" and "mild" message, and that's where silver
comes in.
Even after the ban, Benson & Hedges Lights will be recognizable by their
silver
color, contrasting with the gold of the regular packs. White-and-gold
Marlboro
Lights will still suggest "lightness" just by the stark contrast to the
red,
full-strength Marlboros. The powder-blue Camel Lights with their pastel
camel
will still look milder than the ornery desert-ocher animal on the
regular
"Filters" pack.

Ian Birks, spokesman for Gallaher Group PLC, which markets the Benson &
Hedges
brand in Germany, declines to comment specifically on the "silver" ad
campaign
but agrees that this is the general strategy: "Some brands already have
very
strong color relationships."

If the industry's marketing strategy is already clear, the same cannot
be said
for the effect of the likely EU directive on public health and the
prevalence
of smoking. The directive, which would also quadruple the size of health

warnings on packets, is expected to pass. Member governments may then
require
another look at the bill, if major amendments are introduced. The ban on
the
words "light" and "mild" isn't expected to be amended, but debate
remains open
on the size of mandatory health warnings and on whether European
cigarette
companies will be allowed to export products that don't meet EU tar and
nicotine standards.

For its part, the cigarette industry intends to challenge the EU's right
to
legislate on this issue. But even if Big Tobacco loses in court, it has
a track
record of weathering similar regulatory storms. Analysts are not
predicting a
major effect on sales or margins. It's not just the trick with colors.
Most
cigarette companies already have brands, such as Gallaher's Silk Cut or
Merit
by Philip Morris Cos., that are specifically pitched at smokers favoring

low-tar cigarettes and don't exist in full-strength versions.

Cigarette companies themselves mostly complain that the ban will freeze
competition between low-tar brands. "It could cement the position of
dominant
players," says Jodie Humble, spokesman for British American Tobacco PLC,
which
wants to gain on the dominant Marlboro Lights brand made by Philip
Morris.

What makes the outcome so hard to predict, however, is that the ban is
the
first step in a change in the tobacco debate about what it is that makes

cigarettes dangerous and what, if anything, consumers should be told
about it.
With other forms of tobacco advertising shrinking rapidly, the
appearance of
the packet is becoming the crucial marketing tool.

The fundamental issue is whether words like "light" and "mild" and
statements
of tar and nicotine yields are a monumental case of false advertising.
Public-health authorities, including the World Health Organization, say
it
amounts to a misleading claim that some cigarettes are less toxic than
others.
Surveys suggest that this advertising influences smokers, especially
women, to
switch to lower-tar cigarettes instead of quitting; it also prompts
young women
to take up "light" brands, thinking they are safer.

But a body of research, built up over the last decade, indicates they
aren't
safer. Indeed, the definition of low tar is arbitrary. Many cigarettes
described as "low tar" in the U.S. can't be sold in the EU, which
already sets
a 12-milligram ceiling on tar delivery. "Low tar cigarettes aren't
healthier
and in some ways the type of cancers they cause are uglier," says Jules
Maaten,
a Dutch member of the European parliament who is in charge of debate on
the
directive.

In their defense, cigarette companies say the words refer to taste and
lifestyle -- not health -- and point out that it was public-health
authorities
that started the trend to low-tar cigarettes in the first place. "It's
the
result of forces outside the tobacco industry. Since the '60s, the
scientific
and medical communities have felt that a general reduction in tar and
nicotine
yields in cigarettes must be a good thing," says Axel Gietz, spokesman
for
Japan Tobacco International, which bought the cigarette brands of RJ
Reynolds
Tobacco Holdings Inc. last year. As the 1981 U.S. Surgeon General's
report put
it, quitting is the only safe option but "smokers who are unable or
unwilling
to quit are well advised to switch to cigarettes yielding less "tar" and

nicotine." The EU even legislated maximum yields of tar and nicotine in
cigarettes using the same logic.

Thanks to research over the past decade, public-health officials now
admit that
was probably a mistake. Part of the problem is that tar yields from
cigarettes
are measured using machines developed by the U.S. Federal Trade
Commission,
which regulates cigarette advertising in the U.S., that suck a regular
number
of standard puffs per minute. This has allowed cigarette companies to
design
cigarettes that score well on the machines but not necessarily with
people.
More subtle tests using cotton swabs in human mouths show that actual
smokers
compensate for the filters and oxygen holes in light cigarettes by
inhaling
harder and deeper or by covering the holes. The FTC concedes the tests
are
flawed and is now waiting for a report from the U.S. Department of
Health and
Human Services before proposing something better. Under an agreement
with the
FTC, however, cigarette manufacturers are still required to report these

results in their advertising.

Recent research using more detailed death records from the past 30 years
in
Switzerland and the U.S. has also shown a dramatic increase in a form of
lung
cancer in the smaller peripheral bronchi, known as adenocarcinoma.
Results
published in the journal Cancer in 1997 describe this as an epidemic and

attribute it to the increase in low-tar smokers who suck lighter
cigarettes
deeper into their lungs. The end result of all this, most cancer
researchers
now say, is that despite a massive shift of smokers into lower-tar
cigarettes,
the risk of death by cancer that smokers face has stayed static or even
increased.

But what stung EU legislators into action was the U.S. tobacco trials
that
yielded detailed evidence suggesting that cigarette companies had all
along
been aware that the terms "light" and "mild" were misleading.
Anti-tobacco
lobbyists bombarded EU legislators with documents taken from the trial
records
showing that cigarette companies knew both that smokers chose light
brands for
health reasons and that the health arguments were dubious. One Philip
Morris
document from 1975 says, for example, "Marlboro Lights were not smoked
like
regular Marlboros. In effect, the Marlboro 85 [a full-strength brand]
smokers
in this study did not achieve any reduction in smoke intake by smoking a

[Marlboro Light] cigarette." And a document from U.S. cigarette maker
Lorillard
Tobacco Co. from 1976 says, "Those who smoke low-tar and nicotine
cigarettes
generally do so because they believe such cigarettes are 'better for
you.'"

The EU directive on tobacco products and packaging is a rare lead in
anti-tobacco legislation for a continent that has not been known for its

anti-smoking ethos. Public-health lobbyists in Europe admit they are a
little
confused about what exactly they want to do. One issue is the threat
from
tobacco companies who say the ban on the words "light" and "mild"
amounts to a
breach of trademark. Brands like Marlboro Light can play the colors
trick, but
what about Japan Tobacco's "Mild 7," or BAT's "Mildessorte" (or Mild
Sort in
German)? Some legislators propose grandfathering them to avoid
unnecessary
conflict.

But the more general question is whether it makes sense to support any
moves to
reduce toxicity for existing smokers.

The current draft of the EU legislation would lower the existing limits
for tar
and nicotine yields and impose a new yield limit on carbon monoxide, a
major
cause of heart disease. But health officials admit that doesn't jibe
with all
the evidence suggesting that this will do nothing to reduce health risk.
The
cut in nicotine yields is particularly controversial. Some argue that
higher
nicotine is actually better since it allows addicts to satisfy their
craving
while sucking in less smoke and residue.

And then there's the question of what to tell consumers. Cigarette
companies
complain that for all its detailed prescriptions for safe levels of
smoke
ingredients, the directive would prevent any mention of them on
cigarette
packets. Instead, all packets, regardless of actual yield, would just
state the
legal limits contained in the directive. Public health officials say
that any
information would be misleading; cigarette companies say consumers have
a right
to know. Health officials admit the approach is controversial and plan
to
modify the rules as new research comes to light.

"The directive is not ideal, but it's the best we can do based on the
available
information," says Martin Jarvis of the Imperial Cancer Research
Foundation in
Britain. "We are in the middle of an epidemic and we have to do
something."

The debate will have ramifications all over the world, including the
U.S.,
where the same issues are coming up. Neither the EU nor the U.S. has
worked out
what to do about specially designed "safer" cigarettes such as Eclipse,
produced by RJ Reynolds, and Accord by Phillip Morris, which purportedly
reduce
tar yields by relying on heating rather than burning tobacco. Star
Scientific
Inc., a small cigarette company, has developed a cigarette that reduces
delivery of nitrosamines, another known carcinogen. Public health
officials
say, with much hesitation, that these cigarettes may be safer; cigarette

companies say they cannot market them unless they get the green light to

publicize their benefits, which is currently banned in Europe.

In Europe, tobacco companies recognize they have a weak lobbying
position, both
because of the U.S. tobacco trials and political changes, especially in
Britain, which have shifted the balance against Big Tobacco. The
industry now
says it wants to cooperate with the EU in defining acceptable
ingredients and
outputs in cigarettes. David Davies, spokesman for Philip Morris, says,
"We
think that it's proper that the EU should debate regulation in relation
to how
we produce our goods."

Public-health lobbyists are suspicious of the industry but admit that
most of
the expertise on the subject lies with the cigarette companies
themselves. Some
of these lobbyists say that the most important aspect of the EU
directive,
similar to a measure in Canada, is that it would force cigarette
companies to
disclose what they put into their cigarettes.

The only certainty, however, is that many of these issues will end up in
court.
The European Court of Justice this month struck down an EU ban on all
forms of
tobacco advertising slated to take effect in 2001, on technical grounds.
Health
officials believe they are on firmer ground with the latest production
and
packaging directive, where the EU has been regulating for the past
decade.

Still, both sides are bracing for a long fight. Says Dr. Lynn Kozlowski
of the
Pennsylvania State University's College of Health and Human Development:
"The
cigarette industry is talking about selling death 'light.'"